This has been the most challenging of best practices. It has evolved over the years from “you can’t do that” to “you need to do that.” What does it take to make it better? Has the technology environment changed in such a way as to address long-standing obstacles.
Tag "fiduciary"
Here’s the real conundrum faced by 401k plan sponsors: They realize they don’t have the expertise to administer the plan. So, what do they do? It’s only natural they do seek outside help for their retirement plan. The trouble is, not all third parties are created equal. But does the average plan sponsor know this?
Not only do pooled plans reduced the administrative burden, but they can also reduce the fiduciary liability for 401k plan sponsors. If you’re not constantly looking over your shoulder, you can spend more time with your nose to the grindstone.
The central role of the recordkeeper can create reverberations with other providers should the plan sponsor attempt to change recordkeepers. Any hiccup in the employees’ ability to manage their retirement assets can cause problems for plan sponsors.
The relative quickness of this one-two shot from the District Courts suggests an obvious flaw in the new Rule.
It’s too easy for plan sponsors to get lost in the weeds when dealing with plan minutia. Yes, “the buck stops here” reality can overwhelm many. Delegation is the key. It’s also the Achilles Heel. This is where the magic word emerges.
This isn’t a compliance audit, it’s an operating efficiency audit. That covers plenty of ground, from technology to benchmarking the value offered by the service provider.
Oddly, it’s usually the opposite for mutual funds. Actively managed (higher operating cost) funds tend to perform better during market downturns. Passive (lower operating cost) funds, on the other hand, generally perform better during growth markets.
If plan sponsors are working with the appropriate plan fiduciary, then an ongoing review of the fund’s performance, fees, and underlying risk should be part of their ongoing process
Herein lies the potential for a direct conflict of interest. This applies generally to all proxy voting in commingled portfolios.
